Thursday, September 22, 2011

The last few days have seen a flurry of charges and counter-charges over President Obama's proposal to include tax hikes on the wealthiest American's as a solution to our debt crises and to create enough money to implement a "jobs program." The immediate and vociferous response from the Republican's was that he was initiating "class warfare" pitting one class against another.

The sad truth is that we have had class warfare for some time and the war is basically over--the rich won. The last three decades have seen an unprecedented rise in persoanl wealth for those at the top of the food chain while those in the middle and at the bottom have stagnated. The irony of the foodfight that erupted over the President's proposals is that it came on the heels of the announcement that there had been an increase in poverty in the U.S. and it had hit modern highs. So the reality is that the rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer for a long time now. Call it the ravages of a class war that was never even or fair.

A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that the gain of wealth by the top five percent of income earners had increased by 81% since 1983 while the middle fifth and and lower had decreased by 7.5%. This is not just a description of the current situation where the rich have won the war, but it is a prescription for serious trouble in the future.

We hear cries that we cannot raise taxes on the "job creators" in the middle of a recession. And yet, these very "job creators" have had an unprecedented ride of prosperity that hasn't really produced jobs. We hear cries that we must fix Medicare and Social Security for so that future generations can benefit, but the solutions offered are private sector solutions--voucherize medicare which would increase the costs to each senior (who tends to be in the bottom group that the EPI study showed had already lost ground economically) by over $6000. Other ideas have been to put the program into indivicual savings accounts that could be invested in the market--at place of great peril and instability.

The proposal made by the President would be to raise taxes at the upper limit from 35% to a little over 39%. These were the rates during the boom era of the nineties which much of the wealth indicated by that upper five percent were grown. Now is it me or does the discussion just not make a lot of sense.

I have traveled extensively internationally and have seen for myself other countries outstripping us with their infrastructure and their safety nets whcih create a more stable and equitable society. I have also seen countries where the rich have accumulated the vast proportion of the wealth and must live in armed, gated enclaves to protect themselves from the poor. These are the extreme examples of where the class war has been won and settled but there is no peace. The question for America is which road will we choose?

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Watching Donald Trump's press conference where he claimed to have been responsible for President Obama's releasing his birth certificate was a little like watching a drunken driver who had just caused a ten car pile-up taking credit for the police arriving. He had created much of the recent furor on Obama's birth by claiming inside knowledge on something fishy about it. Make it a topic of 24 hour a day speculation and then, when refuted took pride in his role. How much ego does it take to think the world revolves around you? Just ask Trump. His hubris and meglamania is exceeded only by his forays into selling snake oil and charlatanism.

Now I am not one to make fun of his hair, but it is a great metaphor for his personality--all fluff and no stuff. One must ask, what is he hiding under the do? And that is the real point. Here is a guy who has gone bankrupt four times but claims to have never lost any of his personal wealth. If that is true, that means other people who partnered and invested with him, lost theirs. It makes you wonder how he would handle our money if put in charge.

His simple answers to complex probems and his ready answer to any question of "it's so easy" should disqualify him from serioous consideration as a presidential candidate. Dealing with the world is not easy and anyone who thinks it is is delusional. But when speaking of the Donald that is redundant. And his ability to make everything in the world about himself is reminiscent of the wonderwoman of Wasilla's reaction to the tragedy in Tucson--it was a "blood libel" against her. Makes you wonder what kind of public servants they would make.

We have seen that America's romance with celebrity can go to an extreme and those who pursue fame and wealth are not to be trusted with our hearts and money.

As a educator I was most concerned with "the Donald's" latest salvo at President Obama. He wonders how could anyone who was a poor student end up at Harvard? As a poor student myself, who ultimately ended up at Harvard, I will tell him--hard work. You don't inherit it, like some people get their father's fortunes. You work hard and take advantage of an American system that forgives people their earlier trespasses and allows "do-overs." We are unique in the world for having a system that does not hold you to life-long account for early indiscretions. I would venture to say that most American's who are successful would have not been that way at the age of fourteen.

Donald Trump's understanding of America and its strengths is just as bankrupt as his business partners. And if you don't believe me I am sure he has some ocean front property in the Sahara he could sell you.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

I have found the political discourse (or what passes for that) facinating over the last few years. We have heard a thundorous roar from the right that they want to "take their country back." This, of course, raises some questions in my mind. Who are they taking it back from? How did they lose it to begin with? Just who are these people who want to take something from someone else and when did they get title to it?

The reality is that we live in a very diverse country and a country that achieved its greatness from its diversity. It is a country that was never really owned by anyone. In fact our early history is bound up in rebeling against outside forces who would lay claim to the the country and by the constant immigration of individuals seeking something new and something better. This constant push and pull created a dynamic tension that caused us to constantly try to be better than we were and to seek new vistas of opportunity.

Those who feel that someone took something from them are denying by that very claim the basic history of who we are as a people. No one has owned us or the country. We all share it--we even share it with the people we don't like, can't relate to and who disagree with us. It isn't something we can take or give. It is for all of us. How then can one portion of the country try to lay claim to it?

We can speculate what brought us to this point. We have seen a rising surge of immigration of those who look and sound different from the so-called mainstream American culture. Of course, at one poiont most of our ancestors fit that description to a greater or lesser degree. The only sub-group who could rightfully claim the country for themselves are the Native Americans who were, indeed, here first and who had to put up with a lot of trash from the newcomers whose decendents now want to claim the country for themselves. Then there were the large group of Africans who were BROUGHT here against there will and enslaved for several hundred years. Did they earn some ownership in the country for their troubles?

The sad reality is that most of our earlier influx came from Western Eurpoe whose people LOOKED a lot like the settlers who were already here. Today's new arrivals come from lots of other places and they often look very different. Would we be having such discussions over immigration if it were the Canadains who were coming across the border? Afterall, we haven't built a fence along the North Dakota border to keep THEM out! I can only conclude that much of the angst is built upon racial perceptions. My belief is stirred by the fact that most of this "take back our country" talk came with the election of a President of mixed race, something that took us forty four tries to acheive. The sad fact is that lots of people in this country are bothered by this and feel like "the others" have taken control. This is what fuels the paranoid and conspiracist "Birther" movement. Can you prove you belong here and how much proof is enough? This is probably close to what the Native Americans felt--except in this case no one slaughtered anyone. Change came as it is supposed to come, at the ballot box and a majority voted for a president who didn't look a lot like the preceding forty three had looked.And he had the audacity, not just to hope, but to have a strange name and an African father.

Now I have to worry about those who want to take their country back because I think they are trying to take it back from me! I like the rainbow quality of our country. I have traveled all over the world and we are in a distinct minority of countries who have worked this out peacefully. We ought to be celebrating what we are instead of fighting over how we think we used to be and trying to recapture a time when we weren't as open and welcoming.So I want my country back from those who are trying to take it from me-the narrow, the bigoted, the frightened. We are better than that.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Of late, the country has been mesmerized by the shenanigans of Charlie Sheen, highest paid actor on television and star of the sitcom "Two and a Half Men." I have to admit that I have been an avid follower of the show and have found it hard to turn away from the train wreck that Sheen's life has become. He has veerd from accusations of physical abuse against his wife, to wild parties that seem to involve too much liquor and drugs to now talking to every reporter with a microphone.

He has become the poster child of excess. When someone has too much of everything and not enough of being told what they shouldn't do, they become the alter ego of Charlie Harper (Sheen's character on the show.) It seems like Sheen is determined to throw away his fame and fortune on hedonism. It would appear that he has few Hollywood supporters beyond Mel Gibson, which is another story altogether. People who are suffering meltdowns such as Sheen appear to be allow all the rest of us to feel a little better about our own lives. "Things are bad but at least I am not Charlie Sheen." Of course, Sheen claims to love his life just as it is. He insists that he has the DNA of Adonis and the blood of a Warlock. So I guess he sees that as pretty good. Meanwhile his hugely successful career seems to be careening towards the limbo of late night comics and whether he can come back from the brink is questionable.

Speaking of brinks, I go to the next man, none other than Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's dictator for life who is putting on his own show a half world away. Charlie Sheen at least dresses normally. Gaddafi looks like he is audtioning to be Lady Gagal's escort. But the trouble is that he isn't a joke. He claims his country loves him while he threatens to consume it in the blood of those who oppose him. Gaddafi has been caught in the wave of reform and unrest that is sweeping across northern Africa and the middle east. It is not a good time for despots and dictators and right now it is a really bad time for Muammar. His ego and monomanical hubris is stunning even in an area known for leaders who put themselves first. He has crossed the stealth of Mubarack with the charm of Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile his country is not amused by his behavior such as this one is by Charlie Sheen. In the case of Sheen the outcomes will largely be his own. With Gadaffi, the outcomes affect the entire country. While he has taken crazy to a whole new level, the outcome is not so clear.

Speaking of meglamania, and crazy I offer up the half man in the title of this--none other than Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. What Walker has done is take his election as a mandate to change fifty years of Wisconsin history. His first moves in office was to give over a 100 million dollars in tax breaks to business and the wealthy. His second was then to declare a financial emergency (which he had just created) and his third move was to target state workers (or at least the ones who did not support him in the election)to solve the problem he created.Of course, the unions smartly countered by agreeing to the financial takebacks he demanded. But he has not comprimised because that wasn't the real issue.

Let's look at the broader picture here. Most unions have supported Democratic candidates under normal circumstances. Further the unions have been a major source of campaign contributions to the Democratic party. The Republicans have never been happy with unions and have constantly complained about them. Now, with real financial worries across the country they have seized this moment as one to destroy the union movement once and for all.

It is good to step back and remember that the state financial struggles were created, in part, by the recession. The recession was created by Wall Street greed and lack of oversight--both supported historically by the Republican party. But part of the problem with state budgets has come from a constant cutting of taxes that started thirty years ago. Scott Walker whinning about the difficult financial situation in Wisconsin is like the child who murders his parents and then asks for leniency from the court because he is an orphan. Scott Walker and his comrades around the country have largely created the problems they are now trying to foist onto the backs of the middle class. So the next time you read about something crazy that Charlie Sheen has said or done or the next time you contemplate the complete "batshittiness" of Muammar Gaddafi think also of Scott Walker or John Kasich or the other governors around the country who, in their own lame ways, are just as destructive as the more extreme examples we see every night on the news.

About The Author

Paul D. Houston has published more than 200 articles in professional journals. He co-authored the books Exploding the Myths, published in 1993 and The Board-Savvy Superintendent in 2002. His columns have been collected and published in his books, Articles of Faith & Hope for Public Education (1996) and Outlook and Perspectives on American Education (2003). His most current book, The Spiritual Dimension of Leadership: 8 Key Principles to Leading More Effectively co-authored with Stephen L. Sokolow was published in February 2006. Houston is co-editor for a series of books on the Soul of Leadership with Corwin Press. The first book in the series, Engaging Every Learner, was published in February 2007, and the second book in the series, Out-of-the-Box Leadership, was published in May 2007.

Prior to serving as executive director of the American Association of School Administrators from 1994-2008, Houston was superintendent of schools in three uniquely different public education systems: Princeton, N.J.; Tucson, Ariz.; and Riverside, Calif.